I haven't commented on this anywhere, not even my own blog, even though I live in Durham.

I was embarrassed for our town for a lot of reasons, not the least for attracting the attention of idiots like Rita Cosby and Nancy Grace.

But it had everything needed to become the distraction du jour - race, sex, poor vs. rich, townie vs. university kids. That Nifong pushed it so hard to curry favor with our politically-powerful black community didn't help.

Now these rich kids are probably going to sue the city and I can't say I blame them. The trouble is, it'll come out of my pocket.

I hate to see innocent people wrongfully accused (one of the reasons I'm a liberal) and these lacrosse kids didn't deserve what they got, but they were no angels. The entire team was out of control and the coach deserved to lose his job. It wasn't unusual for the team to take over one of the sports bars downtown, get roaring drunk, puke on the tables and then stiff the waitress with no tip or, sometimes, an unpaid check.

Because they were Duke athletes, they got a free pass. So there was no sympathy for them in this case, but it was, in the end, an injustice.

As with so many things in life, there are no good guys in this story.

David,

While I understand what you are saying, that is really arguing apples and oranges. That the locals (bar owners, police, etc) allow the star athletes to get away with acting like idiots is not even remotely the same thing as someone taking the power of the state to persecute innocent people, all for political gain.

Your town deserves to have a huge civil judgment against it and for the victims (the lacrosse players). Maybe that will help wake the powerful black community up. Anyone with one iota of sense would have realized that Nifong was pandering and it was clear pretty early on that the lacrosse players were innocent.

Where was your town then? Maybe if some people in your town had the conscience to step forward way back when and do something about Nifong and deal with this case, the town would not get what is coming to it.

Simply saying bahh, everyone is a bad guy is moral relativism at its worse, and is why I am NOT a liberal. There were good guys and bad guys here. The good guys were the innocent lacrosse players. The bad guys were Nifong, your town's police department, other prosecutors in your town's DA office, your town's electorate, and the college teachers and administration.

Sorry, but maybe you should think a little harder before trying to claim these guys got what they deserve b/c they acted like drunk college kids. Your town, and the liberal class/race victim mentality is about to reap what it has been sowing for all these years in your town. It is a reckoning that is going to come to more and more towns in the future as well, as people abrogate personal responsibility for the greater meta-narrative of class and race victimology, and the vast majority of Americans get sick enough of it to lash back.

As to whether the accuser should have her identity published - I say yes. And, I don't care that she may be mentally unbalanced. Maybe she, or her therapist, or someone in her family should have thought of that before they allowed her to try and ruin innocent people's lives. Maybe liberals should re-think their position on not allowing us to involuntarily commit the mentally ill. If we could have put her in a mental institution, where she allegedly claims to belong, maybe this would not have happened.

To try and explain my point above a little more,

In almost every civil rights false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force claim that I deal with (I defend municipalities in such cases), the plaintiff is usually someone with a fairly lengthy records, people who have a lot of contact with the police.

Then, in some incident, they may have a case as to false arrest, or excessive force.

Should we as a society say - bahhh, they are all bad guys here and not allow the plaintiff's civil suit to go forward b/c of his previous record? Should the police be allowed to use excessive force on people b/c they were bad in past incidents?

that's just one example of the kind of reasoning displayed in the "no good guys here" type of argument in order to try and wallpaper the reason this case got to where it is today.

Great Banana,

There were plenty of people in this town who did exactly what you suggested.

And pleasedon't read into what I wrote that I think the lacrosse players were wrongly accused. Look back and you'll see I used the word "injustice." I don't use that word carelessly.

No, these kids were out of control but they didn't deserve what they got. When I said there are no good guys in this case, I stand by that. They didn't deserve what they got, but they deserved some discipline before.

The coach deserved to lose his job. The kids should have been kicked out of school for their behavior. They should not have been prosecuted.

I hope that's clear enough. Again, read what I originally wrote, not what you think I wrote.

And please don't read into what I wrote that I think the lacrosse players were wrongly accused.

That should read, ...that I don't think the players were wrongfully accused.

They were.

Just wanted to clean up that typo.

And Great Banana, we agree on everything except that "no good guys" statement. Those kids were punks and someone should have kicked their butts (like their parents) a long time ago. They are not good guys, but that doesn't make them rapists.

It wasn't unusual for the team to take over one of the sports bars downtown, get roaring drunk, puke on the tables and then stiff the waitress with no tip or, sometimes, an unpaid check.

IOW - they behaved like college students.

>>>I hate to see innocent people wrongfully accused (one of the reasons I'm a liberal)>>

You have got to be kidding me. Funniest thing I've read in weeks. Oh, man, this from a guy who has pics on his blog of Karl Rove being led off to prison. Gosh, David, see please tell me all the crimes that Rove has committed. Or are you just wrongfully accusing someone you disagree with, and maybe that's the reason you're a liberal, hmm?

a commenter,

There are things in the world called jokes, even jokes with an edge, and then there's the real world.

And there are things that are against the law and then there's behavior that, while not illegal, is certainly disgraceful.

I know the difference.

Posted by David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 11:12 PM

I understand where you are coming from. I do disagree on one small point. The players should be held accountable for their own actions, that the police and townspeople chose not to allowed them to believe their actions were accepted. Since the town implicitly allowed them there "steam blowing", the fault lies with the town, not the players. The town had no control. Put the blame where it belongs so you that live there can stop this from happening again. Make the officials do their jobs, not turn away.

If leaving small/no tips is a crime, we'd have to indict the whole country of Canada. Canadians during tourist season in FL are notorious no tippers.

David T.
You are moralizing (in fact you may be racist using the criteria applied to Imus). You are trying the players based on your concept of how people should act. They did not break the law by drinking and getting sick. They did not deserve to be brought before the law and condemed in the manner that occured.

The faculty at Duke used your brand of moralizing to condeme these men based on very little evidence available to them and thus made their lives even more miserable.

I have been to Durham. I found the town to be extremely racist. But it was black on white, not the other way. In that environment it is easy to understand how this tragedy occured.

I certainly hope that the town is bankrupt by this action and that the same occurs to Duke and the "88".

David Caskey MD,

Apparently they hand out MDs to people who have little reading comprehension.

Sweet Jebus. Here. In short sentences. In few syllables:

The boys did not deserve what happened to them.

The boys were undisciplined punks.

The boys have every right to sue.

Now, if anyone can find "moralizing" whatever that means (and if it means calling bad behavior bad then paint me guilty), or "moral relativism" in those three sentences, it's because you have pulled it out of your own bigoted backside.

And Doc, if you can't stand a little rough and tumble, Durham is not the town for you. Try Cary. It's boring, it's bland, it's beige, and I think it's just your speed.

David T.
Perhaps I can read a bit better than you can express yourself. In one part of your comments you indicate that you are so sorry for these people, but then in another you bring up their priviledged behavior. To a reader or listener this negative counters the positive statement and implies that you really like that something bad happened to the boys. I am not the only one on this blog that got the message.

The personal attack is true to what I have seen of liberals.

As to being able to "take it". You obviously missed the point. The people of Durham (for what ever reason) are prejudiced against whites. It takes only about 5 minutes in a public setting to get this message. Thus any white will not get fair treatment at their hands and their actions are the result of their hate. Notice that whites are not allowed this priveldge.

Here's the Coleman report which was issued in the aftermath of the party last spring. I encourage Confederate Yankee readers to have a look. You will soon realize that characterizing the lacrosse team as "undisciplined punks" is a gross overstatement. Yes they liked to party, but you don't achieve near national champion status with a 10 year 100% graduation rate by being undisciplined.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lacrossereport.html

The underlying problem is that Duke about 10 years ago made an effort to push alcohol off campus. We (I'm an alum) used to have our keggers on campus where we could be loud and rowdy and not bother the locals. Everybody was happy except for the neo-prohibitionists. So now the law of unintended consequences takes over and we have unconstructive interactions between students and locals.

I meant to add...

"the decision to publish the name of someone that might be less than stable in the community where she lives seems punitive in nature"

An unstable woman who maintains for a year multiple rape stories that are untrue and causes the mess she has needs to be identified so the rest of us can stay the hell away from her. If that's punitive it's far less than the 30 year incarceration that she deserves for trying to get these three guys sent to jail for the same 30 years and is a small enough price to pay.

Well...I'm not sure whether here ID should have been published. But I will say this - the young men's names were published, and they were dragged through hell - and who ended up being the victims? Newspapers in general do not publish the names of the "victim" of a sex crime. But as it turns out, this woman was not a victim. The guys were. So what is fair? My own POV is that no names are published until the proceedings are done. There are way to many false allegations happening in this country.

BTW David T. - As I understand it, not all of the three boys were "rich kids". Maybe you are unaware of how much it costs to defend yourself in court nowadays. Figure loosely about $100K per year before trial, and another $100K at trial. Realism hurts, doesn't it?